Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[marathag]

From an old post of mine on the Aberdeen Test of the Soviet Armor. The US report is nowhere online that I could ever find
The Soviet reply has been around for a long time.

"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)

(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.


Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (garbled).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.

General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)

 

[vetinari]

Hmm wonder if the USSR could be persuaded to part with a Squadron of their war build T-34s as a price for all those Valiants they are being sent.

I mainly want to see the Brit proving ground take a good look at hoe bad the Soviet tank is. Well more like how poorly severed a very good desgin is served by the Soviets.

That was done in OTL. The Soviets supplied an example of each of their tanks to the UK and the US in 1942. The British reported that the T34 had superior armour quality to what they were using and superior thickness. The Americans reported the T34 cramped and basically unfightable. Didn't stop the Russians winning the war with it.

 

[MattII]

The Americans reported the T34 cramped and basically unfightable. Didn't stop the Russians winning the war with it.

No, but it cost them far more vehicles and crew than if the tanks had been properly designed. Proper training would have helped too.

 

[vetinari]

No, but it cost them far more vehicles and crew than if the tanks had been properly designed. Proper training would have helped too.

Who was it that said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own?" It might have been costly in vehicles and men but in the end it still ended it defeat for the Axis...

 

[MattII]

Who was it that said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own?" It might have been costly in vehicles and men but in the end it still ended it defeat for the Axis...

It's just lucky for them they had American support then (as it was for the British), because otherwise they'd never have managed to achieve what they did.

 

[kelgar04]

Who was it that said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own?" It might have been costly in vehicles and men but in the end it still ended it defeat for the Axis...

I don’t know there is a flipside to that argument if you are producing that many tanks of poor quality and feed it into the grinder you are more than likely going through tank crews quite quickly as well which will impact overall performance so easier battles will be harder. This isn’t just counting tanks who go down in battle but also how many are lost due to being made just so damned cheaply and poorly, i mean we hear about how the Soviet turned these out so quickly but how many of them actually saw action and how many were lost for other reasons.

also one thing that made me think was from this timeline, Vickers takes such care here to make sure everything is delivered with the tank, i have to wonder how many turn up with out the logistics they need, spare or even ammo as a few examples we know Russian logistics through out the war was spotty at best so how many tanks again were lost due to poor logistics and sustainment.

Edit: Hell poor welds could kill tanks out of battl if they allow water in it will fry electronics, contaiminate oil which could cause misting in lube oil or misfires in fuel and could maybe degrade ammo. To say nothing of the crews general misery.

 

[wietze]

Who was it that said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own?" It might have been costly in vehicles and men but in the end it still ended it defeat for the Axis...

stalin said that - of course the quantity in vehicles was supplied by the west

 

[Ramp-Rat]

An excellent post regarding the trials that the Soviet T34, was put through in America, and note that only in America, could such an extensive trial have been conducted at the time. While the British and Germans, were able to conduct trials of their own on enemy equipment, they did not have the resources to take the trials to the extent that the Americans could. And the Soviets, Italians and Japanese, lacked the resources to carry out anything more than the most cursory trial. And as the Americans trial showed, the Soviet T34, was a tank which had serious problems, and in comparison to American, British or German tanks, the standards of engineering were significantly lower. This highlights some of the differences between the nations, America was the home of mass production, with a highly literate, educated, trained and well fed workforce, able to operate under the best conditions available in the world at the time. Britain and Germany, had literate, educated, and well trained people, who were also well fed, but not as well fed as the Americans. However other than a few businesses that had American connections, the majority of their industries were far more craft based, and lacked experience in true mass production. They also suffered from the fact that at times, their industry was subjected to various forms of harassment, not only by air attacks, and the need to defend against them, but also because their workers were often required to take on additional duties, such as civil defence and home defence. The Japanese and Soviet governments both had very little regard of their people, and their workforce was in comparison to those of the American, British and German nations, not only seriously mistreated and lacking the advanced education that the others provided. While failing to adhere to the prevailing ideological norms, could earn you a death sentence in Germany, or in the case of the numerous German forced labourers. It was only in Japan and the Soviet Union that government policy, was to force the people to work, with the threat of death for failing to comply with government dictates.


When it comes to education, the standards were far lower than those in America, Britain or Germany. And far more children were used in industry, along with senior citizens, who in the more developed nations, would have been retired and exempt from being required to work. Both nations had other than in a few industries very little experience of mass production, and also lacked the large numbers of skilled engineers. The large number of skilled engineers who acted as inspectors on the production line, were similarly lacking, as was the extensive scientific support that enabled the various inspections of materials to be undertaken. So the extensive testing that took place on production lines in America, Britain and Germany, was to a large extent absent from factories in Japan and the Soviet Union. When it comes to the military, there is a major difference between what was expected or provided to the troops, of different nations. America and the British Empire/Commonwealth, tried to provide their troops with the best equipment available and the best conditions. While the British were far more careful of their troops, as the majority of the signor officers had been through the First World War, and had no inclination to repeat that experience. And were ever mindful of the potential shortages of manpower that were facing, so the majority were careful to avoid excessive casualties. The Germans because of ideological and practical reasons were not as careful of their troops, hence the very high scores of numerous German fighter pilots. Were as both the Americans and British, would after a pilot had served on the front line for a period of time, retire him for rest, then send him to training command to pass on his skills, before possibly posting him back to a combat position, though often in a more signor position. The Germans retained the pilot’s in the front line, until they were ether killed, captured or surrendered, with just a few managing to survive the war. The Japanese and the Soviets had very little regard for their troops, and required them to keep fighting beyond what anyone else regarded as reasonable.

So the T34, was poorly built, a bitch to drive, and lacked the equipment that was regarded as necessary on American, British and German tanks. Provided each tank for-filled its designated role and managed to get into action, what happened to the tank and its crew after that was not a major concern. There were always more tanks and crews to replace any losses, and as the war progressed this was the major advantage that the Soviets had over the Germans. A prime example of the difference between the major parties was in regard to the provision of armoured personnel carriers for the infantry. The Americans had their half tracks, the British had both America half tracks and modified tanks known as Kangaroos, while the Germans had their three quarter tracks. The Soviet solution was to weld some handles onto the T34, for their tank riders to cling onto, while it did save them from having to walk into battle, it did very little to increase their chances of survival. While the T34 did eventually become a useful weapon, it was initially inferior to the German tanks it fought against. With a two man turret, poor vision for the crew, inferior gun sights, and a lack of a radio, about the only things it had going for it was its larger main armament, and broad tracks. The failure of the Soviets unlike the Germans, to train the crews properly, not only in how to operate and maintain their tank, but also in the tactics of armoured warfare. Did seriously contribute the the lack of success the Soviets achieved during the first two years of their conflict with Germany. And while ITTL, given that the overwhelming majority of tank action will occur on the Eastern Front, as it did IOTL, the T34 will enjoy a good reputation. The fact that the new British tank the Victor will be equivalent or better than the T34, and the American equivalent of the Sherman as good as the first version, though a dam site more reliable and better built. I would expect that the T34 will not have the exaggerated reputation ITTL that it does in ours, and views of it will be generally more balanced.

RR.

 

[MattII]

The Valiant is the equivalent to the T-34, at least to the -76 model, with the Victor being (hopefully) a bit better than the -85 model. The Victor is effectively a Comet, but with (hopefully) better ergonomics, and showing up two to two-and-a-half years earlier.

 

[Winged-One]

You're mistaking two guns of the same calibre. the US 75mm is short, and can be made by boring out the 6-pounder, while the 75mm HV is much longer and more powerful.

The 75mm HV was supposed to take American projectiles from the M3 75mm gun, which was the entire point of why it was developed in 75mm, a non-standard calibre for the UK. It used a larger casing to fit more propellant, however; making it more powerful and able to penetrate more armor. (Might have been able to also use entire shells casing and all from the M3, but I'm not certain about that.) But ITTL there isn't the UK love of the 75mm M3 from North Africa due to the Great Tank Scandal IOTL.

Without that reasoning ITTL, there's going to be a lot more pressure to make the gun 76mm (when saying 76mm I mean 76.2mm btw), which is what I was saying.

The only thing lacking about British tanks here (at least, the Vickers ones) is the size of the turret ring.

That's more an issue for the non-Vickers tanks; the Valiant has an acceptable turret ring diameter; it's able to fit the same 76mm F-34 that the T-34 has. Considering the demands of the war, that's perfectly serviceable until 1943 when heavier tanks like the Tiger and Panther enter service; and even then the Valiant won't be useless; it can fit the OQF 75mm, which would make it a good infantry support tank (like the 75mm Shermans) and for service in the Pacific.
The Victor has a turret ring 69" in diameter; that's the same as the M26 Pershing and should definitely be enough to last until the end of the war.

 

[MattII]

The 75mm HV was supposed to take American projectiles from the M3 75mm gun, which was the entire point of why it was developed in 75mm, a non-standard calibre for the UK. It used a larger casing to fit more propellant, however; making it more powerful and able to penetrate more armor.

You have any evidence of that? Because Vickers did produce a 75mm gun in the 1930s, for the export market. If the HV was based on anything ITTL, I'd suspect it was that.

(Might have been able to also use entire shells casing and all from the M3, but I'm not certain about that.) But ITTL there isn't the UK love of the 75mm M3 from North Africa due to the Great Tank Scandal IOTL.

There is a love for a gun with HE capabilities though, so the OQF 75mm is still going to be a thing.

Without that reasoning ITTL, there's going to be a lot more pressure to make the gun 76mm (when saying 76mm I mean 76.2mm btw), which is what I was saying.

You mean the 17-pounder?

That's more an issue for the non-Vickers tanks; the Valiant has an acceptable turret ring diameter; it's able to fit the same 76mm F-34 that the T-34 has.

A gun that big is either going to make it uncomfortably cramped, or see the turret crew again reduced to two, neither of which does good things for the vehicles fightability.

Considering the demands of the war, that's perfectly serviceable until 1943 when heavier tanks like the Tiger and Panther enter service; and even then the Valiant won't be useless; it can fit the OQF 75mm, which would make it a good infantry support tank (like the 75mm Shermans) and for service in the Pacific.

Yep.

The Victor has a turret ring 69" in diameter; that's the same as the M26 Pershing and should definitely be enough to last until the end of the war.

Actually, it has a 66" ring, not a 69" one (reference 1) (reference 2).

 

[kelgar04]

The Valiant is the equivalent to the T-34, at least to the -76 model, with the Victor being (hopefully) a bit better than the -85 model. The Victor is effectively a Comet, but with (hopefully) better ergonomics, and showing up two to two-and-a-half years earlier.

Makes me wonder what the Yanks will think of the Victor in comparison to say the Sherman.

Also if the Australians and Canadians will try to make their own Version of it or they will stick with Ram for the time being.

 

[GrahamB]

Makes me wonder what the Yanks will think of the Victor in comparison to say the Sherman.

Also if the Australians and Canadians will try to make their own Version of it or they will stick with Ram for the time being.

Fairly certain international production of the Victor is already scheduled, no doubt with idiosyncratic names for nation of origin (I presume an OTL referential 'Grizzly' for the maple-flavoured version, and maybe 'Wombat' for the sandy one)

As for the Yankees, I'm sure they'll stick with the Sherman as their 'good enough for EVERYWHERE AND EVERYTHING' as OTL, since there's pretty much nothing wrong with the design. Can't recall if TTL's version is essentially identical to OTL's or if there's differences, like a power transfer case included from the outset. I'm sure it'll be pointed out at some point.

 

[MattII]

The one issue with the Sherman is its height, and I don't think the Americans care enough about that to bother to try to correct it.

 

[kelgar04]

The one issue with the Sherman is its height, and I don't think the Americans care enough about that to bother to try to correct it.

I remember seeing at Bovington that the designers did try to fix the height of the shermans but nothing ever really came of it.

 

[JamesHunter]

I remember seeing at Bovington that the designers did try to fix the height of the shermans but nothing ever really came of it.

Require to much re-engineering (to the point of effectively needing a new hull) I think. Given the M4 was a bit of a stop gap tank with better ones on the drawing board the probably figured it wasn't worth the bother, and then the war ended before its replacements could be fielded.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Fairly certain international production of the Victor is already scheduled, no doubt with idiosyncratic names for nation of origin (I presume an OTL referential 'Grizzly' for the maple-flavoured version, and maybe 'Wombat' for the sandy one)

Probably, let's see what the author thinks.

As for the Yankees, I'm sure they'll stick with the Sherman as their 'good enough for EVERYWHERE AND EVERYTHING' as OTL, since there's pretty much nothing wrong with the design. Can't recall if TTL's version is essentially identical to OTL's or if there's differences, like a power transfer case included from the outset. I'm sure it'll be pointed out at some point.

And in the main the US Army was correct in this assessment. There are ways it could have been improved by 1944 for the ETO. Additional front armour maybe, earlier introduction of the 76mm gun and probably a few more changes.

But it was fine as it was
.

 

[allanpcameron]

5 February 1942. Tandjoeng Priok, Java.

Much of the cargo from MV Straat Soenda had been unloaded while she aground in the Sunda Strait, but the final, often waterlogged, items had been cleared from her hold, some basic repairs had been done, and now she was setting sail for proper repairs.

On board the 8000 ton ship had been 80 CTLS (Combat Tank Light Series)-4TAC and CTLS-4TAY tanks manufactured by Marmon-Herrington in Indianapolis, Indiana. These were the first of 234 on order. Trying to lighten the load so the ship could be refloated, many of these tanks had been swung out onto small steamers and even fishing boats and brought to Batavia’s port.

The hand-over of the tanks to the KNIL had therefore got off to a bad start. In general the process of motorising the Cavalry elements of the KNIL had been slow, and the hope had been that these light tanks would be part of a force amounting to some 700 tanks, plus various armoured cars, jeeps and other transport to replace the horses used previously.

The plan was to develop five or six cavalry brigades, with a squadron of motorised cavalry (armoured cars, reconnaissance cars and motorbikes and one platoon of light tanks). The tank battalion would have two squadrons of light tanks and one of medium, cannon-armed tanks. There would be two battalions of motorised infantry, a mixed battalion of 37mm anti-tank guns and 20mm anti-aircraft guns (27 of each type). The Brigade would have a motorised artillery unit and engineers.

Although they had finally received the 70 Vickers built light tanks that had been ordered before the war, only America could now produce the number of armoured vehicles required. The Marmon-Herrington products, originally designed for the US Marine Corps, though rejected by them, had four basic models.

The Light tanks 4TAC and 4TAY differed only by having their turret on either the right or the left of the hull. The one-man turret contained a machine-gun, operated by the tank commander, and was hand cranked around 270 degrees. The reason for having turrets on both right and left of the hulls meant that between them the two types, working in pairs, could cover the full 360 degrees. There was another machine-gun in the hull, and although designed with another two machine gun positions, the KNIL had opted just for the two. The machine-guns, manufactured by Colt Firearms were the Browning .30 cal MG38BT tank machine gun, with the shorter barrel than the regular Browning. With 0.5-inch armour, and powered by a 124hp engine, pushing the 8 tonne tank along at a maximum speed of 30mph.

On order for the Medium tanks was Marmon-Herrington’s Combat Tank Medium Series (194 x CTMS-ITB1). This 13 tonne tank had a larger engine, and the turret contained an American Armament Corporation designed 37mm 44 caliber automatic gun. The standard US M5 or M6 37mm gun was too big for the turret. The company’s timetable for delivering these tanks was delayed, and the first weren’t expected to arrive until April. The other medium tank ordered (200 x CTMS 1GI4) were also delayed. This had a twin 37mm gun, and the ability to be equipped with up to seven machine guns. While it had a more powerful engine, its suspension struggled to deal with the weight of 20 tonnes. As it was simply enlarging the basic light tank design, there were all sorts of concerns about reliability and suitability.

Of the eighty tanks delivered, those at the bottom of the hold had been badly affected by the water, and there weren’t enough qualified fitters, mechanics or spare parts to get them fit for combat. The decision had been made to prioritise getting twenty-four tanks (enough to equip a full company) fully prepared, even if it meant stripping some of the others of parts. Each tank was taking about one day’s work to get it working and tested. The Cavalry Company chosen to be equipped with these tanks were normally based at Malang, but had arrived at Bandoeng, where they were receiving an intensive training program from the Mobile Battalion based there. As soon as the first few Marmon-Herrington tanks arrived, the drivers and commanders were being trained on their use and maintenance.

General Auchinleck, aware of the problems the KNIL were facing, had requested that Lieutenant-General Percival consider sending to aid from the Royal Armoured Corps resources in Malaya. There wasn’t much in the way that Percival could send, but a few RTR men, recovering from wounds were sent, including a Troop Commander. Even if they couldn’t get all the tanks up and running, at least there was someone with actual battle experience who could aid in the Dutch training program. With many of the 100th Indian Light Tank squadron’s Vickers Light Tanks out of action, a contingent of their Light Aid Detachment was sent to Java, mostly to train the KNIL in keeping tanks running.

 

[CMDBob]

Oh boy, the Marmon-Herrington light tanks. The KNIL are going to have such fun with those.
(They aren't, as they're not good tanks, as the US testing reports indicate...)

Spoiler: The Chieftain's video on the CTLS tanks

 

[vizzer]

Oh boy, the Marmon-Herrington light tanks. The KNIL are going to have such fun with those.
(They aren't, as they're not good tanks, as the US testing reports indicate...)

Spoiler: The Chieftain's video on the CTLS tanks

I've seen the video and have to wonder if they are actually worse than no tank at all.